Maybe this can help you.
Thanks. Weird title or I probably would have found it myself. 
Posts by krulin
-
-
Okay the preface to my questions is, yes I have read the wiki on Windmills. I just want to verify some things that sound kinda weird.
First off it says "If a wind mill produces more than 5 EU/t, it has a chance of breaking. If a wind mill's effective height is no more than 80, it cannot break."
My first question is it says effective height, is that jus the straight y value minus obstructions? If so that seems kinda weird considering 80 seems to be sea level most of the time. Secondly, it has a "chance" to break if it goes over 5 EU/t and I want to know what exactly is "a chance"? Are we talking 50 percent, 2 percent, or what? My apologies if these seem like basic questions, but the wiki page for windmills isn't organized very well, at least not to me. Anyways thanks in advance.
-
Actually, one of the more commonly used failsafes used in modern designs is an 'ice plug'. Basically, you've got a lake on top of the reactor. To this lake, you have a pipe. The pipe is cooled to below 0C (32 F) and creates an 'ice plug' which prevents the lake from dumping into the reactor. In the event of a runaway reaction, core temperature rises to the point where the ice plug is melted, and the lake dumps into the reactor chamber, flooding it, cooling it down and ending the reaction because the control rods are held up and out of the way via electromagnets. Electromagnets have a fuse which is temperature-controlled, when the temperature exceeds safe levels by a margin of error, the fuses blow and the rods automatically slide into place. Failure of power also causes the rods to slide down into place.
When asked what if it fails, the response was "To date, in all of recorded history, we have never encountered a failure for ice to melt at high temperatures or things to fall down as a result of gravity. Should either of these things fail to occur for the first time in recorded history, we will have far bigger problems than a possible nuclear meltdown, since both of these things are required for our atmosphere to continue to exist." Strangely enough, there was no rebuttal.
That still doesn't change the fact that pumping ice blocks into a reactor in Industrial Craft is weird.
-
in fact a real nuclear reactors works with water at every step^^ they're nothing more than giant steam plants, vaporizing their cooling water to drive the generator.
Yeah, but I'd wager they don't put the water in by bucket. I'd also wager that they don't just throw ice at it either (maybe in extreme circumstances where they need to cool quickly). But either way there has to be a more interesting way to setup the "nuclear reactor minigame".
-
You can easily get 2020EU/t with a 9x9x8 bucket CASUC without a risk of a meltdown if you know what you're doing.
True, but with all these technological machines, I find it silly that to cool a nuclear reactor, we have to pump buckets of water or ice blocks into it >_>. That's like the equivalent of owning a computer, but trying to fix it with a hammer every time it does something wrong.
-
what do you mean with "earning" your power? i think i pretty much earn the power for the casuc i set up and cooling is infinite since we know water is a very renewable resource. it's a non-renewable generator because it needs uranium.
i also think that the nuclear reactor in IC2 is better than a real one, since it does pump a ton of EU and contrary to a real reactor it doesn't produce radioactive waste for which we have still haven't found a way to dispose it.Read his post. He was saying that Nuclear power is more rewarding because you have to earn the power it generates and you just can't sit and collect energy like you can with solar panels. I was saying that there is a difference between having to put effort into making something work and having to babysit something because you're afraid if you turn your back for too long there will be a crater where your lovely base was.
Also true about the nuclear waste, that would be kinda overkill on the realism though. I guess I would have just liked to see a little more depth in the components. Maybe more tiers of components or something. Like having different levels of coolant cells or something. I kinda feel like the Nuclear reactor system is a cheesy puzzle minigame and that it doesn't have much depth considering what it is. On the other hand though I'm not saying it should be completely realistic, it just should have a bit more to the innards of it. It also shouldn't be so easy to just pump it full of Ice and let it go. No stratedgy in it, and that's about the only way you get those lovely 2k Eu/T numbers that are getting thrown around (at least if you want to keep them for extended periods of time without a meltdown). Don't really see a need for that much power generation either unless you're just mass producing UU-Matter, but even then, it's still overkill.On a side note, I like the idea of using the Nuclear reactor for power at a mine, since it won't matter so much if it goes boom there. I never thought of that.
-
Display More
The reason for nuclear engineering is "Risk vs Reward". It's cheaper to run 70 solar panels for god knows how long, and without a doubt safer(even if nuclear power is safe enough if you aren't a idiot and decide to jam it full of Uranium and hope for the best), but solar power has no risk, thus the reward is lower.
One can make a CASUC reactor which will output over a thousand EU PER TICK. To do that with solars, you need over a thousand solar panels, something you would either need to mine for a month real time to build, use EE2 to get the resources needed via "passive" EMC generation or just chuck tons of other resources into the right machines to get, or, have a decent CASUC Nuclear Reactor powering a Mass-Generator for a few minecraft days. Scrap wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't be needed.(scrapboxes work better anyway, and it's only slightly harder to make one then it is to get 9 scrap)It's true, the passive EU from solars is nice, and without a doubt safer then even a Mk1 reactor. But it costs so much more to generate enough power to edge out Nuclear Reactors with solars then a sane person would argue is "better".
Just because it's safer, doesn't mean it's better. Dance the razors edge! The rewards you reap are much nicer, not just because they are better, but also because you enjoy them more, as you truly EARNED THEM.
edit: Oh, I completely forgot to mention, you must have been lurking on a different site, because if you've been here for a few months looking for good reactor designs, then you must lack eyes. I mean, it's not like there's a STICKED THREAD FULL OF GOOD REACTOR DESIGNS on this forum. Nope, most certainly not a thing which anyone who has eyes to see with could notice within "a few month of lurking". But if one has eyes and can read, then yeah, there is a sticked thread full of good designs just WAITING to enter your world. Including several NEUTRAL BREEDERS, something which, if I remember correctly, Alakazam(what? I suck at names), decried as a myth when he released breeder reactors.
As for getting the uranium needed to generate the power, you'd be surprised how easy it is to find if you just go spelunking. Or set up a decent sized quarry, frame or otherwise.As for "not outputting nearly as much EU as a decent sized solar farm", I'm pretty sure all those 2k EU/tick CASUC Reactors shit all over that lie. Because a "decent sized solar farm" still doesn't output 2k EU/tick 24/7, perfectly, immune to weather screwing up my power supplies, able to work anywhere in the world(including at my bedrock FCS, where I have the launch codes for all my ICBMs stored and ready to be entered into my mainframe to destroy the world, and at my End base, where I farm pearls and mock dead dragons), and it works in all my Mystcraft Ages, including my stormworld hell age where I go for vacation.
For starters, there is a difference between, "earning" your power, and having to babysit the source of your power. Casuc reactors require some form of cooling and thus fall under the category of either non-renewable or having to have a long string of things creating ice blocks or some such to keep going. What I guess my main gripe is, is that in real life, nuclear power produces a TON of power and relatively safely now, but that's not the case for the nuclear reactors in minecraft.
-
Are we talking normal solar panels or compactsolars solar panels?
Either one really. I mean it might cost a bit more resource wise to get solar panels going, but you don't have to keep feeding them after they're going.
-
I've been playing around with nuclear power for quite some time now on a test world and lurking the forums here for good reactor designs, but I've yet to find a reactor design that beats having a solar panel farm.
It just seems like nuclear reactors don't output nearly as much EU (once you get a decent sized farm together), and also have the disadvantage of having to replace the uranium cells every so often. The designs that do output a good chunk of EU and aren't horribly inefficient usually either have to be cooled manually with ice, water buckets, ect, or have to be so horribly micromanaged so they don't go boom. I know you can setup redstone timers for this as well, but then there's still the problem of the reactor having to cool for like 90 minutes before you can start it over again. So unless I'm missing something, there's not real point to nuclear reactors unless you're just in a place where you can't have a solar farm, or don't want an "eye sore" in front of your base. I guess if someone could point me in the direction of an amazing reactor design it'd help, but lurking on the forums for the past few months, I've yet to find one.
